Constant colds!

demfad

RayCun wrote: »

I didn't say quack list - I pointed out that people were recommending treatments based on anecdotal evidence.......

You could find one study that shows daily dosage helps prevent colds but therapeutic use has no effect. And another study that finds daily dosage has no effect but therapeutic use is effective.

Ray in fairness it looks like people who recommend treatments based on actual scholarly studies are on your 'to be frowned upon' list also.

RayCun

In summary, on the basis of our analysis, there seems no justification for routine mega-dose vitamin C supplementation in the normal population. Prophylaxis may be justified in those exposed to severe physical exercise and/or cold. So far, therapeutic supplementation has not been shown to be beneficial.

http://otorrinobrasilia.com/gripe/cochrane_vitamin_c.pdf

(the marathon runner studies, by the way, are on post-race respiratory infections by ultramarathon runners)

ultrapercy

RayCun wrote: »

I didn't say quack list - I pointed out that people were recommending treatments based on anecdotal evidence



Tyrell and co-workers reported treating 743 men and 758 women for 5 months as follows. Half received placebo pills daily. The others took vitamin C but only during colds at these dosages: 4,000 mg on the first and second days of a cold and 200 mg on the third day. There was no benefit from taking vitamin C. The incidence and duration of colds were the same for both men and women in the vitamin and placebo groups . Men in both groups missed an average of half a day's work while women missed about a day. The other study, reported in 1981, used 95 pairs of identical twins. One of each pair took 1,000 mg of vitamin C for 100 days while the other received a placebo The vitamin C group had slightly more colds but a shorter duration of colds (5 days instead of 6)




Anderson conducted three studies
1 a three month study, 800 volunteers. Half received 1,000 mg of vitamin C daily before colds and 4,000 mg per day during the first 3 days of a cold, while the other half received "equivalent" placebos. In the vitamin group, 74% had one or more colds during the study period while 82% of the placebo group had one or more colds. The difference, which amounted to "one-tenth of a cold per person," was judged by Dr. Anderson to be "of no practical importance."

2. Some 3,500 volunteers were divided into eight groups, six of which received various daily dosages of vitamin C while the others received placebos for 3 months. No difference in the incidence of colds was found among the groups taking no vitamin C, 250 mg, 1,000 mg or 2,000 mg daily. A possible slight reduction in severity of symptoms was found in the vitamin C groups, but volunteers taking dosages of 4,000 or 8,000 per day when a cold began did no better than those taking only 250 mg per day

3. covered 16 weeks and used 488 volunteers. The vitamin C dosage was 500 mg once a week (equivalent to about 70 mg daily) before colds, but 1,500 mg the first day of a cold followed by 1,000 mg on the second and third days. No reduction in the incidence of colds was observed, but those taking vitamin C averaged less time at home (1.62 vs. 1.12 days indoors)



Karlowski and associates at the National Institutes of Health reported treating volunteers as follows: 25% received placebos; 25% took 3,000 mg of vitamin C daily before colds but placebos during colds; 25% were given placebos daily before colds and 3,000 mg of vitamin C daily during colds; and 25% got 3,000 mg daily before colds and 6,000 mg daily during colds. The experiment was supposed to be double-blind, but the doctors had failed to make the placebo taste the same as the vitamin C pills as is done in most trials. As a result, half of the volunteers correctly guessed which pill they were getting and therefore became unblinded. When the results were tabulated with all volunteers lumped together, the average number of colds per person was 1.27 colds for the vitamin group and 1.41 for the placebo group. But among those who remained blinded, no differences in the incidence or severity were found [20]. This fascinating result shows how many people who think they are taking a positive step (such as taking a vitamin) may report a favorable result even when none really exists!




The point of the Cochrane study is that it was a review study. It looked at a set of other studies meeting certain criteria to see if they agreed on the effects. And there was no consistent effect across studies. In one study X worked, in another it didn't.




One way to test whether high-dosage vitamin C prevents colds is to inoculate the throats of volunteers with cold viruses. Two studies of this type found that everyone got colds whether they took vitamin C or not. Walker and co-workers in 1967 and Schwartz, Hornick and associates in 1972-73 gave half of their volunteers a placebo and the rest 3,000 mg of vitamin C daily for several days before inserting live cold viruses directly into their noses; and then continued 3,000 mg of vitamin C (or placebo) for seven more days. All of the volunteers got colds, which were of equal severity




You're ignoring the importance of repeatability.
Take the third Anderson study above. 16 weeks and under 500 volunteers. How many people in that period are going to catch a cold. When you compare the duration of a cold in the vitamin C vs placebo groups, how much data do you have to work with? There's too much noise to place much weight on the findings. And when similar studies are carried out by other teams, they don't find the same results.

You could find one study that shows daily dosage helps prevent colds but therapeutic use has no effect. And another study that finds daily dosage has no effect but therapeutic use is effective.
And if you wanted, you could say, "Look this study shows that daily dosage is effective. And this other study shows therapeutic use is effective. See!"



"is not unreasonable to test on an individual basis" is a long way from saying "it works", and Cochrane says this is not unreasonable "given the low cost and safety".
It won't hurt, so try it if you like.

I don't have a cold but I have a pain in me head for which First Defense and vit c is useless.

RayCun

wheatgrass and echinacea will do the trick

Maximus Alexander

Whatever happened to the acai berry?

demfad

ultrapercy wrote: »

I don't have a cold but I have a pain in me head for which First Defense and vit c is useless.

In my experience the first sign of these pains immediately stop banging your head on the the computer screen, works every time for me anyway.

paddy no 11

ThisRegard wrote: »

Aren't many allergy tests nonsense also? I can't see how any food you take is related to you getting a cold. Are you exhibiting confirmation bias?

Ive no idea, but the results so far 3 months no cold. Tbh I knew that wheat and cheese (dariy) were killing me when the intolerance test confirmed this it was easy give them up, no doubt my immune system was being run down